Science behind US coercive interrogations missing in action

A psychologist has reviewed the Justice Department's memos on the US' coercive …

One of the reasons that scientific discoveries sometimes meet public resistance is that they challenge what we might call "folk wisdom," our commonsense expectations of how the world works. An article released by an academic journal today argues that the psychology equivalent of folk wisdom drove the decision to use coercive interrogation techniques during the Bush administration. According to the article, our current understanding of neurobiology indicates that prolonged stress will necessarily reduce the reliability of long-term memory, meaning that the psychological rationale for relying on it is based on false assumptions.

The article will appear in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, a review journal that devotes space to "Science and Society" articles. Its author, Shane O'Mara from Dublin's Trinity College, largely sidesteps the ethical issues involved with the use of coercive interrogation, although he does not shy away from labeling the techniques adopted by the US "torture." Instead, what he attempts to do is reconstruct the models of human psychology that might be used to rationalize the use of coercive interrogations. He then proceeds to show that these have no basis in modern neurobiology.

Unfortunately, the record of why people might expect that torture would produce reliable information is a bit sparse here. O'Mara bases his analysis on the recently released memos that were prepared by the US Department of Justice in the wake of the September 11th attacks. As he notes, the memos "do not present in any detail the underlying neuropsychobiological model motivating the pro-torture or pro-coercion position." The memos mention consultations with psychologists, but don't acknowledge anything about the information that they provided.

Despite the limitations, he's able to make some reasonable inferences based on the outlines of the interrogation program the memos detail: captives have information in long-term memory that they choose not to share. Extended application of techniques that will induce stress and discomfort will make the captives release the information. The underlying assumptions are that the coercive techniques are more effective than standard interrogations, and that the information they produce is reliable. O'Mara concludes this section by noting, "No supporting data for this model are provided; in fact, the model is utterly unsupported by scientific evidence."

Both long-term memory and executive decision making (the control of voluntary behavior) involve the brain's hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The two structures influence each other's activity, and it's difficult to experimentally separate the decision making behind retrieving a memory and the actual process of retrieval itself. In any case, it's very clear that if either of these regions of the brain are not functioning properly, people are less able to decide whether to recall a memory, and the memory is less likely to be recalled accurately.

Unfortunately, the approach outlined in the memos seems precisely designed to limit the functioning of these areas of the brain. Sleep deprivation is widely recognized as having a severe impact on memory retrieval. Short-term stress can induce a "fight-or-flight" type response, which enhances recall. The techniques, however, were applied across months, resulting in prolonged stress. That not only interferes with recall, but some studies suggest that it actually physically reduces the size of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The repetition involved with this questioning is also known to leave individuals vulnerable to the production of false memories.

Although O'Mara is able to cite extensive literature that describes the unreliability of recall following extended periods of stress, he doesn't directly address the possible impact of prolonged stress on executive function. Instead, he focuses on the incentives involved in the process, which he argues provide a reason for everyone involved to accept anything said by the victim.

As long as the victim is talking—regardless of whether they're saying anything valuable or reliable—they're not being tortured, which places a premium on any form of cooperation. Those administering the interrogations are also likely to accept it, as doing so will alleviate their own stress. "Subjecting a fellow human being to torture is very stressful for all but the most psychopathic," O'Mara suggests. "In fact, the historical literature is replete with accounts of alcohol or drug abuse by torturers."

Before summing up, the author spends a moment discussing the proposed use of insects to unnerve captives. Ironically, controlled exposure to stimuli is currently one of the most effective phobia treatments in the arsenal of cognitive-behavioral therapists.

That, in O'Mara's view, "underscores the unsophisticated folk psychological model underpinning coercive interrogation." In short, the entire approach is based on how we think people will respond to stress and discomfort and our expectations for the accuracy of human memory. Instead, the last few decades of research in the field have indicated that our expectations have little basis in the actual functioning of the brain.